Posted on 12/13/2007 8:10:33 PM PST by djf
t was revealed yesterday that the lady who became the world’s oldest mother at 66 has been struck down with cancer.
Single mum Carmen Bousada who is now 67 was diagnosed with cancer months after having her twins.
Carmen said that “I have a very serious illness. I am well at the moment but you never know how things will work out.”
When Carmen made her decision to have children using IVF at her age she sparked a worldwide debate.
A lot of people have said that she is very irresponsible having children so late in life and even more so because she is single.
When Carmen was asked who will look after the boys if she dies, Carmen replied: “I have a nephew, and their godfather is very good with the children. They are not going to be alone.”
Ok so she will have someone to be able to look after the boys but it will not the same as having their mum or dad looking after them.
Do you agree or disagree with people having children so late in life?
“I believe that everyone has the right to decide if and when they choose to bear children. . .”
You are forgetting that there are real children involved, here. I don’t deny her the right to do as she pleases with herSELF. However, there is an innocent, very dependent in many ways, human being that has been pulled into this “lifestyle choice.”
Two. She had twins.
No, I am not forgetting that there are real children involved here. These children are alive today because of her. There are many YOUNG mothers who have died from illnesses and their babes had to grow up without them. Both situations are sad and tragic, but life goes on....and even children without mothers can and do survive very well in this world. My mother's mother died when my mother was 10 years old. If her mother had known or even considered that she could die before her child could be raised to adulthood, should she have chosen to not have children? I sure don't believe that. My mother has been a blessing in this world, and the woman in this article is a blessing to those children for giving them life, and for those who love her.
I was just on another thread where they were talking about ventilators, etc., to keep an 85 year old man alive and the family of that man felt it was wrong to take him off man-made life support. Your comment is exactly what I pondered about those who judge so harshly those who do not believe in taking "heroic efforts" (so to speak) towards those who would have died without man-made interference. Carry on...... :)
Meanwhile, medical advances cause the average American life expectancy blows past 80 without slowing down. ;)
What!!!?
Also, my paternal grandmother is 90 and only recently saw her last foster child graduate high school.
Yes, if she wasn’t married when she got pregnant.
I’ve had lots of miscarriages before I had kids, and no one has mentioned any increased cancer risks.
Do you have any info on this?
Thanks
You condemn us because we do not condemn this woman? I would not choose to have a child at 66. However, I think that if a woman with a chronic illness or a condition such as blindness or other disability chooses to have a baby, and can provide for her child and even have g-dparents chosen for her child should something happen to her, then I have other worries that are more concerning.
The poor kids growing up in gang-infested areas with druggie, sleep-around mothers and no fathers are indeed FAR worse off. And some of their offspring are being raised by grandmas no younger than this mother.
My only wish for this woman is that she beats the cancer and lives a long, healthy life.
this woman IMO was too old to start having babies....
the slowing down of men's sex drive and the ability of older women to conceive are both natural outcomes, NEEDED outcomes in fact, and why society tries to circumvent those needed outcomes is beyond me...
While I agree with you I also posit that many other parents are equally selfish. such as:
* Single women who adopt children from other countries
* Gay and lesbian couples who adopt or use turkey basters to father their children
* Inner city teens who have multiple children with multiple men, none of whom they marry
This Italian woman wanted children. She didn’t know she had only a year to live. Had she adopted two homeless orphans, no one would have called her selfish.
Do you see me condemning anyone Yaelle except this woman? Point it out & I didn't condemn you I just shook my head at you. It really irked me you had to go & say People, focus your ire and opinions more toward the young, single, poor women who are having babies. Those children are in far MORE trouble. Not all young woman stay single , poor or are have children who are in far more trouble either.Some do stay in their gang infested areas. But there are plenty of young woman who don't get pregnant on purpose but chose to be mothers rather then abort.Many are able to go to school and get their lives on track you know. I know some even! I do agree that children are raised by grandparents & thats fine if they are able & willing to do that if the need is there.
However this woman lied to get the doctors to help her in the first place & as I did point out she could have chosen to get pregnant at a younger age then 66 yrs old. It is selfish to have children fully knowing that you are not in any shape to be there for them as all of you age. I have my opinion & you have yours. I don't feel its fair to God parents to raise your children because you feel the need at 66 yrs old to finally have children. We do agree on one thing..I wish her well & hope she can beat the cancer. ~Pandora~
It isn’t that I don’t believe we should do all we can to save lives. It is a hard decision when you have someone on life support and it is clear they aren’t going to get better. The problem I have is that is a fuzzy line. People do recover inexplicably from comas. Miracles do happen.
I was totally against the Terri Schiavo decision because though she may have been beyond recovery she could breathe and function on her own without a machine and sometimes react and her parents loved her and wanted to take care of her. I’ve never been convinced of the better off dead mantra. Better for whom is what I ask? If one is a vegetable incapable of consciousness then the idea of better or worse really goes out the window.
That said I worry about society being prompted to provide the means to prop up what are spurious rights made up to serve convenience. Rights should be centered on what you can do with your own means to live your life. We shouldn’t be creating rights that are not derived from nature and require other people’s money to provide. A right to bear arms ties into a natural right to defend oneself within their own means. A right to bear arms that involves other people’s money to distribute weapons to everyone in a misguided attempt to get rid of any inequality of arms.
So much of the attempts to remove inequalities in society are a game of catching sand. There is usually a good reason why one does not have what they don’t have and it almost never is simply because someone has kept them down. The problem is that even if someone indeed did play an active role this can not be solved by someone else propping them up. If a person doesn’t have the skills to earn money then guaranteeing them money without them developing the skills to make it is like pouring water into a bucket with a very big hole in it.
This is where the left have a core flaw in their ideology. They seem to believe that the people at the bottom arrived at and stay their by no fault of their own. They totally ignore the countless individuals who rise from the depths of poverty and work hard and make a life for themselves. Instead of calling these people to hope and faith in themselves to be better they call them to hope and faith in staying exactly where they are only with a government benefit to prop them up.
Socially we have created a whole slew of irrational rights.
Abortion is one of them and now we are starting to see as abortion clinics have shut down and less and less doctors wish to become abortionists that now attempts are being made to force doctors to be trained as abortionists. Just wait until universal health care comes then Doctors will be forced to perform them or lose their medical licenses.
Rights propped up are almost always rights that infringe on the rights and welfare of others. Even good intentioned rights like those provided by the disabilities act are burdensome. The next thing you know there will be requirements for changing stations in every department store. (Though most have done this voluntarily with out government order)
I am not convinced that good intentions could not be accomplished by less oppressive means but “There ought to be a Law!” crowd doesn’t thing about asking others politely to consider their plight. They instead go to the government to force their will and the support of their “rights” on others.
Here is one of many links about the abortion/breast cancer link:
http://www.lifenews.com/nat3521.html
Although I did not read all the links, if you pursue from there, you will see that the problem of “undifferentiated cells” that results from an early abortion is essentially the same as from an early miscarriage. This article discusses the “undifferentiated cells” issue from an abortion standpoint, but physiologically, the same thing happens when a miscarriage occurs, as best I understand it.
I hope the connection does not frighten you. There are many things we can all do to avoid breast cancer (not using the pill, not smoking. . .). It is good to be aware of these things, though, check ourselves regularly, and be proactive.
Probably so, but still woefully short of what they need to know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.